Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Old_NJ_Head_Zimmer Date: Nov 17, 2012 2:42pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Beatles

I'm sitting here in front of an outdoor fire listening to tunes and wondering will there EVER be another group as prolific and awesome as the Beatles

50+ years and there is still no one even close


Is it pure genious and star aligning or what?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: RBNW....new and improved! Date: Nov 17, 2012 5:06pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

"They had the good sense to break up at the height of their creativity," Lewis says. "It wasn't planned, but it was the best move ever. The result is we never had to endure the embarrassment of The Beatles going disco or getting a middle-age paunch"They left seven years of brilliantly recorded music and a perfect corpse that kept the mystique and beauty of The Beatles intact." http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/story/2012-06-10/beatles-50th-anniversary/55506324/1

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Mr Cranky Date: Nov 17, 2012 4:28pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

You should also give credit to George Martin for his help.
Then I suggest you turn off the recording and listen to the world for a while.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: user unknown Date: Nov 17, 2012 3:05pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

"Is it pure genious and star aligning or what?"

IMHO both; right place-right time in the universe for four highly divergent geniuses(each in his own right)to meld into a solid greater than the sum of it's parts unit, the impact of which will likely never be duplicated

As much as all of us here revere the Grateful Dead, I don't think any of us would place them on the same "Original Output/Worldly Impact" level of John, Paul, George and Ringo.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Arbuthnot Date: Nov 17, 2012 3:19pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

it's hard to disagree with their popularity (as popular as twinkies no doubt), as the numbers speak for themselves, but i must say if i were in front of that fire i'd be musically bored to tears; i'm not denying their importance/influence to pop music, just saying their music never did anything for me, but of course given that 99% of the world is aligned with your thinking, my different viewpoint isn't going to shake any foundations, that's for damn sure

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Nov 17, 2012 5:14pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

I figured you'd show up here. I think your love for the dynamics of live music makes it difficult for you to appreciate The Beatles. Sure you can get bored listening to the same few songs played exactly the same way. I suspect if you only had the Grateful Dead's first 6 or 7 studio albums to listen to without the benefit of all the live material, you wouldn't think much of them at this point either. I can't say I actively listen to The Beatles that much, but i wouldn't change the station if a song came on the radio either. Yer Blues was on Deep Tracks on S/XM the other night and i cranked it.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Arbuthnot Date: Nov 17, 2012 6:40pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

hey elbow, i _almost_ wrote a comment that you'd be showing up soon ... and here you are! while it's true that i listen to plenty of live music, i realized my dislike of the beatles a good long time (years and years) before i ever heard a live note; i don't think much of most music (with or without live sounds) beyond a certain point

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Nov 18, 2012 2:29pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

But overwhelmingly deadheads are in a different situation, at least the vast majority of deadheads heard the Dead live. Don't you think we might feel differently about the Beatles if we had ever been to a show?

I'm assuming there's nobody here who ever saw the Beatles live, but maybe I'm wrong?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Nov 18, 2012 3:00pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

I guess I would turn your point around and say that there are Deadheads out there that are as deadicated as any who never saw the band but were able to hear their live music. Light into Ashes would be a great example and I doubt that he, or any other showless deadhead was converted because of the studio albums. Also deadheads like William Tell who went to shows from '74-82 but doesn't listen to anything beyond '71. So I am not sure how much seeing the band influenced people from enjoying the band. In contrast essentially all Beatles fans are fans because of the studio releases. Beatles fans don't discuss a version of Day Tripper because they really only have one. Ironically Grateful Dead fans can discuss which version of Day Tripper they prefer (3-31-85). So I think if you like to hear variety in your music, then you are more likely to be drawn to live bands like the Grateful Dead vs. studio bands like the Beatles. Also the amazing thing about the Beatles is all the music was really produced over 6 year period (8 if you include early stuff released later) so the "eras" in Beatles history are more like years which you can hear changes from album to album With the Grateful Dead the eras are more like decades and you can hear the sound evolve over hundreds of hours of available music within each era. Me, I like them both, but i could never listen to the Beatles for hours at a time like the Grateful Dead because it would get boring.

Beatles stopped touring in 1966 except for a rooftop appearance in London that was part of Let It Be sessions (not sure the exact date but probably in 1969). So pretty safe bet that the vast majority of deadheads or Beatles fans never saw the Fab Four live.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Nov 18, 2012 3:31pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles vs the DEAD

Hey L--strange that this issue has rec'd so few "BUT wait, the Beatles were the BEST by far!??" posts (or at least that's what I expected when I checked back in after my post).

For us in the late 60s and early 70s in the N Cal area, I cannot BEGIN to convey the contempt we held for all truly pop (= mainstream success of sorts) groups (as I have so often bored folks with hereabouts, like the disdain for Led Zep, blah, blah, blah).

The Beatles were similarly regarded; when I think of the 20 or so DEAD Heads I lived with during the 70s the few that were in bands understood the musical genius of L&M as song writers, but NONE of them played their records (like Arb) at all...it was somewhat of an academic discussion of "Beatles or Stones?" and almost fashionable to be dismissive of them (again, I can laugh about our extreme myopia, how we reveled in our narrow mindedness), but we really did think the DEAD were infinitely more creative than the Beatles.

So the flip side would be that I am somewhat surprised to find that few (any?) stepped up to say that as well (ie, I would no longer defend that view I held in the 70s about the DEAD being more creative/entertaining/etc than the Beatles, but expect some Heads to still have that feeling...?).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Nov 18, 2012 3:41pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles vs the DEAD

Well, you are posting on a Grateful Dead forum so there may be a little bias in this crowd but it is hard to not give the Beatles their due for creativity. I don't think you can dismiss the fact that the I think they rank second amongst number of songs covered by the Grateful Dead and I don't think this was just the later eras. They were covering Hey Jude (miserably i might add) within a year of its release. I think even the Grateful Dead recognized the influence of this band.

I think calling The Beatles a pop band is unfair though. Sure they started that way, but they were not making music like a pop band after 1966. They stopped touring by that point. They didn't release a single from St. Peppers which was unheard of in the 45-driven times and there is very little that one would could confuse as pop in the White Album or Abbey Road. The Beatles made their music and it was popular but not because they were trying to be a pop band. I think comparisons to the Rolling Stones are also a bit skewed since one could argue that their best albums came out, after they were going head to head with the Beatles so even in the 70s when you were debating this subject with your friends, you probably included Sticky Fingers and Exile, which i think were the true peak of the Stones. Besides, who wrote the Stones first hit? Those Liverpool mop tops, right?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Nov 18, 2012 6:45pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles vs the DEAD

Oh yeah, meant "pop" in the way you described (successful, and a band our parents could enjoy..that was always the criterion! Ya know? Back then it really mattered; the generation gap was important). Defn didn't mean it in the sense of the pop radio bands, etc., but just as a descriptor of "mainstream success = lack of counter culture significance" or some such...if that makes sense.

Now, looking back, I can defn appreciate the 65-67 albums of the Beatles (Revolver, Rubber Soul, etc), and do think we and the DEAD (in some of their negative comments about them that we just ATE up back then) were being far too hard on them.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Nov 18, 2012 9:22pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles vs the DEAD

You know, I fail to remember any negative comments the Dead ever made about the Beatles.
You quoted one (Phil saying the Beatles were 'never into the revolution') - I don't know where that's from, but in itself it's pretty much true, and reflects many radicals' disappointment with the Beatles at the time.
I'm not sure what other comments you recall, though. As far as I knew, the Dead were all big fans of the Beatles - BIG fans - Weir in particular. Though Lesh & Garcia had been somewhat dismissive of their first hits in '63 ("too clean"), we know the impact Hard Day's Night had on them in '64 - Lesh grew a Beatle haircut & Garcia started thinking about playing rock music.
And it's little-mentioned that they even went to see the Beatles live when the Beatles came to San Francisco in '65 and '66! In fact, if you hear the 1967 Jerry & Phil radio show, Lesh & Garcia specifically praise the Beatles at one point for their innovative role in pop music. And Garcia still praised them in his '71 Rolling Stone interview.
In short - the Dead admired the Beatles, even AFTER seeing them live!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Nov 18, 2012 11:37pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles vs the DEAD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz3bcS4WDNY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWscxdleZzI

Bobby W - paragon of taste!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PR_rzF8ofw&;feature=related

Monkees or Banana Splits?

I'm still dancin' circles around the museum in Bilbao...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Nov 18, 2012 11:45pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Arb is full of shit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qf8y7v0WIE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsGRasyHEEg

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Nov 19, 2012 4:48am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles vs the DEAD

Yes, it could be that we "read" our own biases into what we perceived to be their take on it, but the Phil comment was from the time of Garcia's first book ("signpost"; might be some of it in there? don't have a copy any more...). And then from various radio shows and 60s articles, but sure that it's very LITTLE in relation to what we have now (all that you cite). It's NOT in the various books we have today, that's for sure (written by all the outsiders, Phil, Bob...do they all have rose colored glasses? Was it more "us" than them? NOt sure).

More than once over the past 30 yrs I've almost cringed thinking "hmmm...that's not what I recall being the case" (when reading of the many examples you provide), but can't find the ones that helped me (us) come to the conclusion we did at the time...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Finster Baby Date: Nov 19, 2012 5:38am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

I can only go based on videos i have seen and recordings I have heard, but I'm pretty sure that even folks that attended a Beatles concert have never heard them live.
Kinda hard to hear the band over thousnads of screaming teenage girls. :)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cosmicharIie Date: Nov 19, 2012 5:57am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

I wonder if there are any good live Beatle SB's out there, which would of course, eliminate most crowd noise

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Finster Baby Date: Nov 19, 2012 7:55am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

There are. I've heard some boots in the past where the sound quality was very good. Cooll to listen to from a historical perspective, but the performances never sounded any good. By most accounts, icluding the Beatles themselves, after the advent of Beatlemania, their concert performances were never very good. Due to the incredible amount of crowd noise, they were never able to hear themselves onstage, thus were never able to play with any cohesion. They are on record as saying that it got so bad that they eventually stopped trying and just went out and went thru the motions because no one else in the venue could hear them either. This, I'm pretty sure, was a significant factor in their decision to stop touring after 1966.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: unclejohn52 Date: Nov 18, 2012 3:54pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

I was almost old enough for a live concert (12-14 yrs old at their heyday) but I never had the opportunity, and thank god, never went - it would have been very disillusioning. A Beatles concert was a mob frenzy, not an enjoyable music event. They hated playing concerts because the band couldn't hear themselves at all over the screaming. (Equipment was certainly more primitive then.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkSSirZBAU8


I always prefer to think of the Beatles as pop, not rock, for me an important distinction. Their importance to the music world cannot be overstated - before they existed, you mostly had one-hit wonders, (and Elvis) and a lot of garbage songs. I think Lennon & McCartney are like Rodgers & Hammerstein - just a magic combination, and McCartney is a musical genius. Lennon brought the edginess that would serve them well. Sgt Pepper's is rightly regarded as a work of true genius, one of the finest albums of all time. The only "hack" in the band was Ringo - Harrison was a mighty fine guitarist, if you've ever tried to play along, not easy at all.

Enormous influence on the culture of the time as well. Don't know how many yearbooks of the era took their theme from Beatle songs, but our 1970 yearbook theme was "Come Together."

True, I cannot listen to them for hours at a time... it is like continuously eating rich chocolate, Twinkies and vanilla shakes. But when you're in mixed company, putting on the Beatles is a nice compromise, most people will not complain, maybe even sing along. A good part of their catalog is now "standards", part of everyone's repertoire. I can't say I like any of the GD covers of Beatle material though, it's mushy and lazy for the most part.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Old_NJ_Head_Zimmer Date: Nov 17, 2012 3:32pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

Dude the Beatles are Not my favorite listen, but being bored to tears make me think you've never really listened to the band.

EVERY musician from 1960 on was influenced whether they knew it or not

Jerry said they only reason he got into rock and roll was the Beatles

To each his own, but you are one on an island with the bored to tears comment. Then again, people like Slayer....,

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Arbuthnot Date: Nov 17, 2012 6:34pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

yeah, i've listened, i listen to just about anything that i come across, their music just doesn't appeal to me; however, it's not by any means 'unlistenable', it's just not what i go for (nor Slayer for that matter btw); fyi, your 'EVERY' musician from '60 opinion is just that, but feel free to swim over to my island any time you want to get away from the suffocating crowds

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: user unknown Date: Nov 17, 2012 7:21pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

But Arb, if there was no Beatles there would never have been The Monkees.



http://www.dawgsaloon.com/images/smilies/scared/smiley-scared003.gif

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Nov 17, 2012 6:13pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

Allow me to at least allow the sample to increase by one...I can step into to echo Arb's take--M&L were great song writers, but musically the band, save for Paul, were hacks at best; and, the DEAD provided mixed signals over the yrs on the Beatles, though clearly the historical database now suggests that wasn't the case (eg, I always used a line by Phil, "...the Beatles were never into the 'revolution'..." to signfify that they were another group that was "too pop"; he and Jerry ended up being much more positive about them in latter yrs).

In any case, though I can appreciate your adoration, I could never listen to them for extended periods, personally. If I were to make a list for "you can only grab ten albums..." or 20 or even 100, they would be hard pressed to make my cut.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snori Date: Nov 18, 2012 11:38am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

My 1st LP was 'With the Beatles' (their first over here) so my musical education began with them. Those first LPs and singles were new and exciting. Then as they grew musically fans like myself learned about their influences and tracked them down. This would lead to Dylan, The Band, Hendrix, Cream, Floyd etc and finally here.

I only get their music (now CDs)out occasionally now, but often enough to remind me of how 'Four boys from Liverpool shook the world' and set me on an incredible journey through a kaleidescopic array of music.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: RJ_Squirrel Date: Nov 18, 2012 8:12am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

Rock music would not exist if not for "hacks". Frank Zappa wasn't going to invent it.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Pig Street ! Date: Nov 17, 2012 6:22pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

Here's to Twinkies!

Attachment: beatles.jpg
Attachment: 0227091523_M_beatles4450.jpg
Attachment: 0227091509_M_beatles3350.jpg

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Nov 18, 2012 7:34pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

phony beatlemania has bitten the dust...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4dL0lv72oM

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: thekind78 Date: Nov 18, 2012 7:01am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

I think a little of both, IMHO. The state of American rock'n'roll after 1959 - Buddy Holly's death, Chuck Berry's legal troubles, Little Richard quitting the business, Elvis in the service - seemed to have left a pretty big void in rock'n'roll music, just waiting to be filled by the boys from across the pond who were more or less breaking through re-hashing the music of the folks listed above. Of course, they would have been just a flash in the pan had it not been for their own innate talents....and a little help from Dr. Robert!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Nov 18, 2012 5:11pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

Count me in among the "Beatles were the greatest thing since sunlight" crowd.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: BVD Date: Nov 18, 2012 9:54am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

To answer the original question, the answer is NO. I never realized that A Day In The Life, Strawberry Fields, Across The Universe, Imagine and countless others were written by a hack. If you are bored perhaps Revolver will snap you out of your coma.